List High Court · 2023
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. available with the petitioner, he should not have resorted to the present proceedings before this Court. The court is not required to meticulously scan the evidence that has come on record on the basis of which the trial court has passed the impugned judgment…
Judgment
Mr. M.M.Khan, Advocate. Versus
#1. Parveena Begum, Aged 30 yrs. W/o Altaf Ahmad Malik, D/o Gh. Nabi Lone, R/o Garkote, Uri.
#2. Fatima, Aged 4 yrs. (minor), D/o Altaf Ahmad Malik, R/o Garkote Tehsil Uri, District Baramulla (Minor through her mother). ……Respondent(s).. Through: Mr. Omais Kawoosa, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE. JUDGMENT
#1. The judgment passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate (Sub- Judge, Uri) has been impugned in the present petition whereby the court had directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.7000/- per month to the respondent No.1 herein and Rs.5000/- to the respondent No.2 from the date of filing of the application on the grounds mentioned in the petition.
#2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petition cannot be entertained under Section 561-A Cr.P.C as the petitioner has an alternative remedy to pursue against the order impugned. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not controvert the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner could avail alternate remedy in the matter. The 2 CRMC No. 12/2019 counsel, however, submits that as the petition is pending for some time, the court may hear the petition.
#3. The Court is of the view that in view of the alternative remedy
#5. available with the petitioner, he should not have resorted to the present proceedings before this Court. The court is not required to meticulously scan the evidence that has come on record on the basis of which the trial court has passed the impugned judgment in the petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. The scope of this Court in terms of Section 561-A Cr. P.C, as then applicable, is restricted one and cannot be invoked in the case in hand. The petition is, accordingly, held to be not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy which he may have against the order impugned. In the interest of justice, it is directed that in case the petitioner resorts to the remedy available with him, the time spent in the present petition shall stand excluded while computing the period of limitation that may be prescribed for such remedy.
#6. Disposed of. Srinagar: 01.09.2023 Pawan Chopra (PUNEET GUPTA) JUDGE Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Which court decided this case, and when?
High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, on 01 Sep 2023. The bench was PUNEET GUPTA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.